How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Occupy Wall Street   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Occupy Wall Street

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


300 posted 11-09-2011 10:26 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     You can see how many people were arrested in New York as of the date listed.  You can also see exactly how thrilled the DA folks are with taking these cases to trial, which gives you a pretty good idea of exactly how dangerous and ugly these folks were.  You can see that none of them have been convicted.  You can judge for yourself the likelihood of convictions and the liklihood of the severity of any sentencing.  You will still not get me to say anything bad about the police.  I was specific about where and how I thought the police were misused.  I mentioned Phoenix specifically, already.  

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-03/-occupy-wall-street-protesters-request-trial-at-court-hearing-in-new-york


     Your point about OWS, if I understand it correctly, is that these are dangerous and wretched people who must be punished and who must not be permitted to continue to demonstrate.  Any violence is deplorable.  I have offered what criticism I have heard that I believed to be accurate of OWS, and I have deplored it.  I continue to deplore it.  They also have a valid point about the way that Predatory Capitalism as opposed to decently regulated capitalism has damaged our society and many of the people in it.  Iím very sorry that you find the point objectionable and that you criticize, and many of your friends criticize the notion of redistribution of wealth.  You may  have missed the fact that your particular views, Republican views, have sought to redistribute wealth as well.  In the case of the Republican effortrs, this redistribution is from the poorest people to the richest, a sort of reverse Robin Hood syndrome that favors the Sheriff of Nottingham.This has not always been the Republican way.  The fact that it is the Republican way now might justifiably be bothersome to folks who take pride in the glorious past of  that Party.  The fact that it is for the most part not a problem at all seems telling to me that the party that prided itself on trust busting is now seen by the majority of Americans as being the party thatís in the pockets of the Rich; and that the party that freed the slaves now bends considerable effort to keep their descendants from voting.

     As for the comments about the neo-nazi content of the magazine you chose to cite as a reference, I was criticizing your reference which had some choice about whether to print neo-nazi material or not.  They certainly have the widest possible latitude in their printing of political material.  Their poor choice in comparing the President to Hitler was very bad taste indeed.  

     The presence of neo-nazis on the Right is onlty natural; the nazis are a right wing movement, and not everybody on the Right agrees with them.  I know that you donít, for example.  But those folks are an intimate part of many right wing events.  Mr. Pearce, the Gentleman who helped introduce the Arizona racial profiling measure, sent out neonazi propaganda, and the people who helped him write the law had some connections with eugenics and some of the nazi racial doctrines.  They supported that law in part because the wrote most of it.  You might look back on prior discussions for references.

     That doesnít make you or the Republican Party nazis however.  You arenít trying to pass of their views as your own, are you?  You arenít publishing them in Republican magazines without comment, are you?  That would put you in dubious company indeed; so, no, I didnít think so.

     There are left wing groups that are fully as nuts when it comes to the Arab -Jewish conflict.  I think those folks are anti-jewish or perhaps anti-zionist nuts.  Itíd be hard strictly to call them anti-semites, I think, because Arabs are Semites as well.  You want to call those groups anti-zionist, itís fine with me; they are.  You want to call OWS anti-semites, your thinking isnít working riught; youíre confusing a part with the whole, and for that matter, a fairly small part at that.

     Your citation, however, identified that publication as any number of possible things.  Most straightforwardly, it identifies them as a magazine that doesnít mind taking the risk of being seen as anti-semitic; thatís okay with them.  That also means that they donít mind how that perception affects the way that other people see the other things that are published in that magazine as a result.   Youíve got every right in the world to tell me that your reference citation is simply a matter of my skewed perception.  In fact, you have.

     My response is to say that your citation could care less what I think but that it apparently cares very much what Mannie thinks because it not only printed his comments aboutr the President, but Printed the German original and a translation, just in case nobody got the connection that he was trying to make.

    

quote:

Shall I bring up comments by lefties on pages, too, and paint the commenters as valid representatives of the left.



     In answer, if you think that the comments have some effect on the believablility of the text being cited, you probably have something of an obligation to bring them up, donít you?  It would tend to keep the citations more from publications that have some regard for their reputations and for the truthfulness of what they print, Iíd think.  If you believe that there are anti-semites on the left, by the way, youíd probably be right, and they should probably be seen for what they are.   Should I be complicit in keeping a secret like that simply because I share some of the same politics?  That doesnít mean I share everything, and I can criticize people who are in sustantial agreement with me for areas where we part ways as easily as Iíd expect them to criticize me.  How else are we supposed to learn from each other?

     The following links might be useful for infoirmation you requested.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67187.html

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-1.pdf

http://www.nlg-npap.org/html/news.htm
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


301 posted 11-09-2011 10:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Who in the woreld cares what this Manny thinks, Bob????????? It was a comment on a site, nothing more, by someone who read the article....period...no different than the protestor who held up the sign calling for the end of Jews? What was the left response to that? "Oh, well, he;s a radical and doesn't present the views of the protestors."...and then you go off on some stranger who posts his own opinion and pin the tail on the rightie. Get real, please!

[This message has been edited by Ron (11-09-2011 11:27 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


302 posted 11-09-2011 10:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I won't get you to say anything bad about the police?

  Arrests sounds so much like tough talk, though, instead of being a description of giving a bunch of guys in uniforms a chance to beat up a bunch of folks whose ability to defend themselves is limited to throwing sticks and rocks and the occasional fire-cracker against guys with shields and helmets and riot batons designed to do real harm, and who have access to a whole variety of less-lethal and even fully lethal weapons should they feel they need them.

I don't need to, Bob. You do it very well all by yourself.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


303 posted 11-09-2011 11:26 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

For the record, Bob, so long as Mannie was able to do so respectfully, he could post his opinions in this forum, too.

Just as you do.

Trust me, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with either of you. Nor do I think it should reflect one way or another on anything else posted in the forums. Guilt by association is a very unconvincing argument.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


304 posted 11-10-2011 05:04 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:
Who in the woreld cares what this Manny thinks, Bob????????? It was a comment on a site, nothing more, by someone who read the article....period...no different than the protestor who held up the sign calling for the end of Jews? What was the left response to that? "Oh, well, he;s a radical and doesn't present the views of the protestors."...and then you go off on some stranger who posts his own opinion and pin the tail on the rightie. Get real, please!




quote:


If you believe that there are anti-semites on the left, by the way, youíd probably be right, and they should probably be seen for what they are.   Should I be complicit in keeping a secret like that simply because I share some of the same politics?  That doesnít mean I share everything, and I can criticize people who are in substantial agreement with me for areas where we part ways as easily as Iíd expect them to criticize me.  How else are we supposed to learn from each other?



     The Gateway Pundit is not a  board reserved for open conversation. Mike.  It pretends to be a news organization.  If it wants to publish material like Mannie's, it should feel free to do so as, plainly, it does.  But when it doesn't draw a distinction between editorial and News content, its value as a citation of other than opinion drops to zero.  Debased currency drives out good currency, just like with counterfeit money.

     I very sorry the 78 year old lady ended up injured.  When a magazine with the kind of agenda that this one has jumps to conclusions as to how that happened, I have trouble trusting that agenda.  I actually read through the blog afterward, and so did at least one other reader for reasons that seemed as sensible as the ones put forward by the magazine but which went unreported and uncommented upon and essentially buried.  I have no sense what the actual truth might have been, but then I suspect that the Pundit may not know that either and they remain untroubled by their construction of events.

     Were they The Prosecution, I would be happy with such a stance, but they weren't.  Nor do I want to take over the function of The Defense; how would I know what the facts are?  But I do know enough to feel suspectious of the degree of inference The Pundit is using, and to understand that they are substituting that inference for a direct reporting of the facts.  A lot of the Right Wing citations have this particular flaw, and it makes these publications highly suspect as other than sources of opinion.

     Opinion is one thing, information is something else.  I don't need the Pundit for an opinion about Occupy DC.  I have one myself, and if all our opinions are worth the same, I'd as soon listen to one that's more pleasant or more entertaining or more believable.  I mean, all other things being equal and all.

     If I'm listening for information, I want information I can trust.  I don't have to agree with it.  I don't even imagine I know close to everything, and I know that a lot of the stuff I think I know is simply wrong.  Finding out new stuff keeps me alive and keeps my brain growing, making new connections.  Trying to picture how mass deforms the geometry of space makes me sweat, and I like that.  Trying to figure out what happened to that 78 year old lady makes me curious and I simply have a lot of trouble iumagining a bunch of demonstrators pushing a lady down a flight of stairs for no reason.

     It could happen, but most of the violence I've seen doesn't happen like that, and I've seen a fair amount of violence.

     As far as violence goes, my right wing friends may think that it's pretty wild, but I think if it has been there would have been some major casualties on the side of the demonstrators, very heavy casualties indeed, and that there might have been some among the police as well, and relatively speaking, there have been very few and very mild.  This has been very gentlemanly civil disobedience.  There are those of us who remember Paris in 1968, or the democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, the riots in Saigon during the Diem Regime, the riots in South America during the Nixon visits in 1956.  Kent State.  Tienamin Square.  When serious civil disobedience takes place, there can be some serious casualties.

     These have been for the most part pretty quiet.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


305 posted 11-11-2011 02:50 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     For those interested, this is a website that carries a lot of information about OWS activities and plans, some of which may be of interest, some of which may not.
http://occupywallst.org/


     I noticed that early on the site was a questionaire that appeared to be about Demographics of the OWS movement.  I thought that might be a useful sort of data to gather, and it might be a bit of a help in our discussions if and when the information becomes available.  Nice to see that folks are starting to gather that sort of thing now.

     I notice that the OWS folk, like my friends on the Right,  appear to have suspicions about the media, though their worries seem to have a slightly different (stated) cause.  I figure that if both left and right are nervous about the major media, that offers some reason to think the media may be doing at least some of their job correctly; how much will be better judged in retrospect.  Since there seems general agreement on the reality of bias in the media, that suggests that the bias may be real, but simply not grotesquely enough in favor of one side or the other to make a single side basically pleased with the efforts the media are making.

     I thought I'd make the location of the site available to those who weren't aware of it so they might;a) take part in the excitement ;or, b) stay ahead of the nefarious plots;or, c) remain blissfully above the whole thing.

     Your choice, as though you might have been taken by surprise by that fact.  Enjoy.  Or not.  

    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


306 posted 11-12-2011 10:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Mike, in looking back over your comments, which I give you as you posted them,

quote:


I won't get you to say anything bad about the police?

††Arrests sounds so much like tough talk, though, instead of being a description of giving a bunch of guys in uniforms a chance to beat up a bunch of folks whose ability to defend themselves is limited to throwing sticks and rocks and the occasional fire-cracker against guys with shields and helmets and riot batons designed to do real harm, and who have access to a whole variety of less-lethal and even fully lethal weapons should they feel they need them.

I don't need to, Bob. You do it very well all by yourself.




I would call your attention to the fact that they have been quoted out of context, and the meaning has been distorted by this practice out of recognition.  You have yourself spoken out against unionization plans so police might push for more desirable working conditions, and a greater say in staffing levels, which strikes at the very safety of the officers.  I defended the right of officers to have a voice in these matters.  My criticism in this quote was directed at the misuse of police presence to please politicians and to help further political goals.  Thge tough talk is not on the part of tghe police, who approach this sort of activity as professionally as possible; and the chance to do this particular job is not being given the police by the police themselves, as you well know; they are ordered to act for reasonas that may or may not be popular among any particular group of officers.  My actual statement is post number 286.  If it had actually said what you thought it did, that statement would have been much shorter and simpler to write.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


307 posted 11-12-2011 10:22 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     And Ron, I was addressing The Pundit and the issues brought up by their difficulty in failing to distinguish between opinion and fact.  One of their own readers brought up the issue further down in the blog in what I thought was a very objective way.  That reader thought that the paper was giving the left a gift by the way it was trying to present the facts of the pushing incident itself.  I think he was right.

     As for Mannie, If they want to publish him, thatís their business.  They own the magazine.  What they are doing there, however, is different than what you do here.  They say they are a magazine and they make a pretense of publishing ďnews.Ē  They also publish ďopinionĒ in the form of a blog.

     You publish, in this part  of your PiP project, a series of opinion threads which are constructed with a wide degree of leeway.  A quotation from one of these threads is not meant to be taken as a fact; itís meant to be taken as an opinion.  If somebody wants to publish journalism, they should not assume this is the place to go to publish it.  You make no pretense of offering this service.  As far as I know, you never did.  This operation is what the late Eric Berne would probably call a clean operation; that is, what it says above the front door is what gets shipped out the loading dock in back.  It says, [bold]Acme Opinion Company[/bold] over the front gate and it shows the specs proudly for everyone to see who labors there.  Go to the rear gate, open up one of the packages from one of the trucks and youíll find an Acme Opinion, quality controlled and inspected as per specs, in every box.

     At a real news magazine, thatís what youíll find, too, including the inspection.  The real news magazines and newspapers, too, may have opinion in them as well, but they draw a careful line between opinion and news because a news magazine runs on reputation.

     The Pundit didnít do its job.  It reported things that other people said uncritically, and it reported them as fact.  This is what one blog writer pointed out.  It wasnít a real news magazine; it was an opinion magazine pretending to be a news magazine because it didnít ask or attempt to answer the questions that the blogger was asking.  These are the same questions that any reasonably skeptical news consumer should be asking.

     I think the reason that The Pundit wasnít asking the questions is because it isnít in the business of reporting news; itís in the business of stirring up rage.  Thatís what I think.  I can remember seeing left wing pamphlets that were written the same way, and if you look on the net, surely you can find their equivalent there today.

     Thatís what Mannie was doing in his blog entry.  I donít fault Mannie for it; thatís simply who Mannie is and thatís probably the most insightful as he can get at this particular moment in time.  The problem is that The Pundit was publishing it in a format that put it cheek by jowl with what a lot of people canít distinguish from news.  And that gave it a degree of weight that was purely ó at least in my opinion ó artificial.  I confess the nature of those opinions certainly help shape the degree of my reaction to it.  Conflating President Obama with Adolf Hitler requires doing the very notion of analogy a certain amount of damage, and managing to inject that level of  loathing and rage into it is actually, at least for me, psychologically painful.

     Seeing such material there and seeing it here, however, are different things.  I donít like that sort of thing here, but we are not trying to present ourselves as a news organization, and as long as that rage is not thrown upon other people here or isnít expressed as a direct threat to somebody in government (which may bring out the Secret Service or other police actions) or in private life (which may be covered by laws governing assault) the laws about free speech and the rules of this site are quite accepting.  Mannieís opinions, as long as they donít or didnít get personal, could get shipped out the back dock without any problems.  Thereís shouldnít be any guilt by association involved there, unless I tag myself with it.  

     I hope nobody will tell my liberal friends.

     On the other hand, The Pundit, to the extent that it wants to be thought of as a news source, has a fair sized problem indeed.  It hasnít kept its blog separate from its news.  This is something that news magazines and papers make an attempt to do, so that their news authority is not tarnished by the opinions of its editorial writers or such readers who may wish to contribute.  The Pundit has not done so thus far, possibly contributing to the notion  ó the correct notion as it turns out ó that such a contribution would be welcome there.  I predict that more such contributions will be published there in th future, and that the critical thinking in editing the various news articles published will not rise significantly.

     As someone once pointed out to me in helping to consider whether a particular suicidal patient should be allowed a pass to walk about the grounds, ďThe past is the best predictor of the future.Ē  I pointed out that we now had airplanes and cars and highways, and he pointed out to me that the patient would also get out of the hospital one day, one way or another.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


308 posted 01-31-2012 06:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So now we have Occupy Oakland breaking into city hall, trashing offices, breaking windows, burning American flags, destroying a children's art exhibit....and what does the White House have to say about it?

Jay Carney..."It's a local law enforcement matter." Hmmmm...they didn't feel the same way about Obama's friend, the Cambridge professor.

That little incident got Obama's full attention, not to mention the mainstream press.

If it were the tea party doing that in Oakland, Obama would be screaming in three-part harmony with the network stations.

Still want to compare the tea party with the OWS? Be my guest.......
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Occupy Wall Street   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors